01Facts
The Director of Higher Education granted permission on 04.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 to fill 22 Assistant Professor posts at Digamber Jain Mahavidyalaya, a minority institution.
¶ 4Advertisements were published on 08.08.2023 and 12.08.2023.
¶ 4Subsequently, the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 ("Act, 2023") was notified on 21.08.2023.
¶ 4Following an earlier round of litigation where the High Court set aside contradictory government orders, the Principal Secretary (Higher Education) issued an order on 21.04.2025 holding that since the advertisement predated the Act, 2023, the old procedure remained valid.
¶ 1, 4, 22-24Sunil Kumar Jain challenged this order, leading to an interim stay that halted salaries and approvals for selected candidates; the selected candidates and the Committee of Management filed cross-petitions against the subsequent stay orders.
¶ 13-1502Issues
i.1. Whether the recruitment process is deemed to have commenced upon the publication of the advertisement or at a later stage of final consideration/approval.
¶ 12ii.2. Whether the enforcement of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 nullifies a selection process already initiated via advertisement under the previous law.
¶ 12, 17iii.3. Whether the writ petition filed by a Treasurer of a time-barred Committee of Management without impleading selected candidates is maintainable.
¶ 6-1103Law Applied
The principle that recruitment begins with the advertisement and "rules of the game" cannot be changed thereafter.
¶ 24, 38Section 31 of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 regarding "Repeal and Savings" to protect ongoing processes.
¶ 22, 39The necessity of impleading successful candidates as parties to a challenge against their selection.
¶ 8, 11The definition of a "person aggrieved" for the purposes of locus standi in writ jurisdiction.
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 12
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 Section 66Section 40Section 31
U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 Section 10Section 11Section 31
U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 Section 12Section 13Section 33
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1999 Section 33E
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 Section 16E
U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 Section 6
04Reasoning
The court reasoned that once a recruitment process is initiated through a valid advertisement following due permission, it creates a protected legal pathway.
¶ 35, 39Because the advertisements (08.08.2023) preceded the notification of the Act, 2023 (21.08.2023), the Court held that the old rules governed the process pursuant to the principles in Tej Prakash Pathak.
¶ 38-39The Court noted that under Section 31(11)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, there was a "deemed approval" of appointments when the Vice-Chancellor failed to act within the stipulated time, which was later formalized by an express approval order.
¶ 28, 39The Court distinguished other precedents like Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat (2026) and Rachna Hills (2023) as they dealt with different factual matrices such as waitlist recommendations or amendments without saving clauses.
¶ 35-37The Court criticized the petitioner's failure to implead the selected candidates, noting that such a defect goes to the root of the case.
¶ 1105Holding
The Court held that the selection process was legally initiated and protected under the repeal and savings provisions, and that "rules of the game" cannot be changed mid-process.
¶ 38-40The Court dismissed Writ-A No. 10333 of 2025, vacated the interim orders staying the 21.04.2025 government order, and disposed of Writ-A Nos. 5941 of 2026 and 5920 of 2026, rendering orders stopping salaries and suspending approvals non-est.
¶ 39-42Original Court PDF
Sunil Kumar JainvsState Of U.P. And 5 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
